| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3381 = 1963 SLD 3381 = 1963 PLD 217 |
Peshawar High Court
Second Appeal No. 121 of 1962, decided on 19th July 1963.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad Jan, J
Malik Abdul Maqsit for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Dates of hearing : 12th and 15th July 1963.
Second Appeal No. 121 of 1962, decided on 19th July 1963.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad Jan, J
Malik Abdul Maqsit for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Dates of hearing : 12th and 15th July 1963.
MUHAMMAD DAUD-Appellant-Defendant
VERSUS
SHER BAHADUR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents Plaintiffs
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Excludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try suit for ejectment of tenants on grounds contained in section 13-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9. Mst. Hajan Nawab Bibi v. Miss Watson, Manager, Church of Scotland Mission High School, Gujrat P L D 1957 Lah. 37 distinguished. Mst. Dilbar Jan v. Ghulam Muhammad Khan and others P L D 1960 Pesh. 15 not fol. Mrs. Keays Byrns v. M. Obaidullah Khan P L D 1961 Lab. 256 fol. Jumo Khan v. Ramzani P L D 1959 Kar. 60 ref. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-A permanent statute. Jurisdiction - Determined by averments in plaint. A I R 1942 Lab. 217 ref. JUDGMENT This is a defendants' second appeal against a decree for ejectment from a house passed against him by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Campbellpur, and affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge Campbellpur. The decree was passed in a suit brought by respondents Sher Bahadur Khan and Muhammad Aslam Khan (hereinafter to be described as the plaintiffs) for the ejectment of the appellant Muhammad Daud (hereinafter to be described as the defendant) from house No. 361/B. VI. W. 6/33, situated in the Abadi of Hazro and for the recovery of Rs. 100 as rent due from the defendant from the 1st of January 1958, to the 19th of January 1959, at the rate of Rs. 8 per mensem. The claim of rent was partially decreed by the first Court at Rs. 37-8-0, at the rate ofRs. 3 per mensem which was also confirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs' suit proceeded on the ground that they were owners of the house andthat the defendant was their tenant on payment of rent who was liable to ejectment on the expiry of the lease period, as stipulated in the lease deed. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs needed the house for their own require ments. The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds, including want of jurisdiction in the Civil Court, as the matter eras allegedly covered by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restric tion Ordinance (VI of 1959). The other pleas, inter alia, adopted by the…